Re: Defining Human - pt. 2

Lee Daniel Crocker (lcrocker@mercury.colossus.net)
Mon, 9 Mar 1998 19:24:33 -0800 (PST)

>> You are correct about it being an improper decision and why it was
>> improper. You are incorrect that there is any 'right to choose to murder
>> an unborn child'. Prior to Roe v. Wade, it was unthinkable. Roe v. Wade
>> stepped in and redefined human in a most barbaric way for convenience's or
>> expediency's sake.
>
> Unfortunately, you have repeatedly refused to point blank come up with any
> refutation of my statement that fetuses have no rights. You claim that "right
> to choose to murder an unborn child', Prior to Roe vs. Wade, it was
> unthinkable". You are right that it was unthinkable, but not for the...

Let's at least get our history correct: before Roe v. Wade, abortion
was only "unthinkable" in Texas and a few other states; it was quite
commonplace in New York and elsewhere. And the justices hardly
invented the right out of whole cloth; the decision was a natural--
if extreme--consequence of its earlier interpretation of the 14th
amendment in such cases as Griswold v. Connecticut (which legalized
birth control in 1965). 

--
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lcrocker.html>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC